Star Trek Shuttles

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The presence of fuel doesn't seem to imply reaction mass, necessarily.

And the fact that jettisoning and igniting that fuel is an unusual desperation maneuver invented on the spot also tells you that shuttles aren't rocket-powered. Jettisoning ignited fuel is the normal operating mode for a rocket.

In the show and movies, impulse engines leave trace exhaust that can be detected when it's convenient, but they don't have propellant or create giant amounts of blast or backwash in atmospheres. You could build a Trek craft using Spaceships without the need to include modules for a third means of propulsion (like contragrav) without contradicting anything that I recall.

[Fred Brackin]

Just for the record, even though "Impulse" drives are described as having exhaust and we see "ion trails" multiple times (some of those are from warp travel though) Impulse drives in Gurps Spaceships terms are Reactionless drives (probably sub-warp types).

They aren't even Hot Reactionless.

[Flyndaran]

They also use superscience sensors to detect the sometimes exhaust, so there's that added variable.
Maybe their technobabble drives disrupt the "orientation" of trace extant particles leaving a technobabble trail undetectable to modern science. More like a ship's wake than an energetic spew of reaction mass.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

And the fact that jettisoning and igniting that fuel is an unusual desperation maneuver invented on the spot also tells you that shuttles aren't rocket-powered. Jettisoning ignited fuel is the normal operating mode for a rocket.

There is a significant difference between burning fuel efficiently in a rocket and dumping it overboard before igniting it en masse, to deliberately create a fireball. According to the dialogue, the remaining fuel was good for 45 minutes of normal operations. Dumping the fuel and igniting it reduced that to six.

I don't claim that any of this is good and consistent science, or that it wasn't overwritten later, but please at least argue from the evidence.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

One could, grasping at straws here, conclude that phasers gave the required energy for the start up like how one may need to jump a car battery even though it mainly runs on gas.

That is an amazing bit of of Star Trek apologetics. I'm friending you right now!

[Tyneras]

I preferred the explanation that early TOS phasers used a very powerful fuel (shuttle fuel?) to power an inefficient beam emitter, with the waste being dispersed as waste heat/particles in subspace (hence the weapons don't get red hot after a few shots). This is also why an exploding hand phaser is treated like a bundle of dynamite when it overloads.

TNG phasers were refined and very efficient, so used an actual battery with a much lower energy density (much safer). When TNG phasers explode, they go off like a firework or exploding cellphone, not a bomb.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

In the show and movies, impulse engines leave trace exhaust that can be detected when it's convenient, but they don't have propellant or create giant amounts of blast or backwash in atmospheres. You could build a Trek craft using Spaceships without the need to include modules for a third means of propulsion (like contragrav) without contradicting anything that I recall.

Well said, Anaraxes; this is the crux of the matter. I think we would all agree that in Star Trek canon there are warp drives and impulse drives. The question is: when shuttles are maneuvering around at low velocities near the surface of planets, are they merely using their impulse (warp?) drives?

In the past, I've used GURPS fusion rockets as the technology behind Star Trek impulse drives. By making that design choice, I've pretty much force myself to look for another technology to explain what is clearly non-vectored thrust maneuverability when they fly/hover close to the surface.

At this point, I think I'd rather add GURPS contragravity to explain low-power shuttle flight, than to add fine attitude control and low(zero?) velocity maneuvering to the same drive that propels the ship to near light speeds. But, I could be talked out of this.

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

At this point, I think I'd rather add GURPS contragravity to explain low-power shuttle flight, than to add fine attitude control and low(zero?) velocity maneuvering to the same drive that propels the ship to near light speeds. But, I could be talked out of this.

Not all Star Trek ships could land and take off, so the presence or absence of a contragravity lifter system is as good an explanation as any.

[Crystalline_Entity]

If I remember correctly the starship Voyager had "antigrav thrusters" they used when landing on a planet in some episodes, which to me implies some sort of contragravity. I'd second the suggestion that only vessels with contragravity lifters could land on a planet.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Well said, Anaraxes; this is the crux of the matter. I think we would all agree that in Star Trek canon there are warp drives and impulse drives. The question is: when shuttles are maneuvering around at low velocities near the surface of planets, are they merely using their impulse (warp?) drives?

In the past, I've used GURPS fusion rockets as the technology behind Star Trek impulse drives. By making that design choice, I've pretty much force myself to look for another technology to explain what is clearly non-vectored thrust maneuverability when they fly/hover close to the surface.

At this point, I think I'd rather add GURPS contragravity to explain low-power shuttle flight, than to add fine attitude control and low(zero?) velocity maneuvering to the same drive that propels the ship to near light speeds. But, I could be talked out of this.

Considering we know Star Trek has ubiquitous anti-gravity, why wouldn't they have it for close manuevering for shuttles? As for impulse drives, we know shuttles have them, possibly for space stuff. They call them impulse thrusters.